Talk:Cerberus Daily News - August 2010
Um what as well? What exactly was this supposed to say? Lancer1289 17:54, August 21, 2010 (UTC) :::I agree with everything that Anon said. Except all of the words. FridgeRaider88 18:03, August 21, 2010 (UTC) :You sure about that? B/c the Copeland guy was in the news yesterday, August 21. August 22's news deals with a plastic surgeon murdering asari. And personally, though I really don't think that this is a discussion that needs to be carried out here, I drew the opposite conclusion you did. I totally agreed with Mr. Patalung. Copeland is flat-out wrong on this one. Whether or not it's because of some higher power (and in this case it definitely isn't), the civilization on the ship did experience something of a cultural reincarnation. Mr. Copeland just doesn't want to see it as such due to his (apparently) militant atheism. SpartHawg948 04:14, August 22, 2010 (UTC) :To sign your posts, simply type four "~" at the end. Arbington 07:17, August 22, 2010 (UTC) ::(edit conflict) And how was Mr. Patalung wrong? The civilization inside the ship/computer did undergo a form of reincarnation. I stated he is wrong for the same reason I would if Mr. Patalung had issued a blanket denunciation of people who disagreed with him, like Copeland did. And while he may not have been wrong, he also wasn't demonstrably right with his pull the plug comment. Did he say 'pull the plug. will anyone in there reincarnate?' Nope. He said, 'pull the plug and their souls will be gone'. I'd love to see you prove he's right on that one. I was decrying Copeland's ludicrous denunciation of the beliefs of others, which is clearly juxtaposed with Patalung's tolerance of others, even those who call him flat-out wrong. As for signing, the page tells you how to right at the top. However, just in case, type four tildes at the end of your post. SpartHawg948 07:20, August 22, 2010 (UTC) ::*See? This is exactly why it's best not to start these conversations. The old 'religion and politics' saying exists for a pretty good reason. I wasn't trying to argue religion vs atheism, merely the tone of the speakers. One said 'you are wrong. And anyone who uses this to justify a belief in ___ is also wrong.' The other said 'well, I'll have to disagree with you there. And if I am right, maybe next time around this guy will agree with me.' That was my real issue with this story, the tone of the two men interviewed, not their arguments, as honestly I don't really agree with either of them. But, since religion is one of those issues where it's really impossible to make headway, I figure it's best if we just let this one go, and see how the story pans out. Either way, it should be interesting. SpartHawg948 08:18, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Ghost Ship=Geth Dream Does any body think that this issue with the ghost ship might provide the basic architecture for accomplishing the geth dream? If I remember correctly there most sought objective was to create a platform that could house all their processes and those that followed sovereign were for a great part seeking the fulfilment which he promised them (most likely a reaper body) but this whole virtual civilization could provide a non-reaper way of achieving their objective...What does everybody think? EDIT: Betrayer...In Truth, It was I who was Betrayed... 21:27, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Added my sig. to avoid confusion of who is talking about what...and to NickTyrong, you should have edited your section above not this one Betrayer...In Truth, It was I who was Betrayed... 21:27, August 22, 2010 (UTC) :Indeed, if these new synthetic/virtual lifeforms make it through this and into galactic society, the geth will likely be trying to get in touch with them and learn their ways. They are, as you said, living the "geth dream". Arbington 07:30, August 22, 2010 (UTC) ::Certainly an interesting theory, to be sure. Who knows? Maybe this ship or related developments will factor into ME3. SpartHawg948 07:48, August 22, 2010 (UTC) :: ::Odd. Could have sworn that 1) This discussion was in the previous thread, as opposed to this one, 2) I had suggested we just let it go, and 3) An anonymous user was the "Op" of this thread. Hmmm... guess not. Well, let's try looking at what they said with our eyes open and blinders off, shall we? Mr. Copeland said the following. "That's true until you pull the plug. Then what? All these 'souls' just wink out, that's what. Those who would latch onto this incident as proof of some higher level of existence are simply projecting their own wishful thinking onto digital noise." (emphasis added) Note the bit where he says, in essence, "Anyone who uses this to support their ideas of something I don't like is wrong." He doesn't say "Come on now, that's not what it is." He flat out issues a blanket statement that anyone who sees the situation differently than he does is wrong. :On the other hand, Mr. Patalung says the following. "One man's noise is another man's music. Perhaps in his next life, Mr. Copeland will be less tone-deaf." Hmmm... let's actually read what he said. "One man's noise is another man's music." I don't know about you, but if I had to decide whether that meant "Agree to disagree" or "You're just an ignorant fool", I'd have to pick the former. Every time. After all, he is literally saying that it is open to interpretation, and that he and Copeland simply drew different conclusions. As for the rest, "Perhaps in his next life, Mr. Copeland will be less tone-deaf.", yeah, that pretty well means "And if I'm right (about reincarnation), then maybe next time around this guy {Copeland, who if Patalung is right, and Copeland has been a good boy, will be reincarnated as another person) will agree with me (i.e. be less tone deaf and hear music instead of noise)." Again, none of your "ignorant fool" nonsense. So yeah, the tones of the comments were pretty much what I described them as, and nothing like the bass-ackwards versions you described. Again though, this is an argument that isn't likely to win over any converts (no pun intended), so it'd be best to just drop it. Or, at the very least, keep it in one thread. SpartHawg948 19:54, August 22, 2010 (UTC) :You simply edit the proper thread, not the entire page. Once again, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not Buddhist, I don't believe in reincarnation, and I'm also not an atheist. I could care less about either of their beliefs, as both of them are wrong as far as I am concerned. I simply dislike the tone one used. Again, Copeland says that anyone who uses this to justify their beliefs is simply projecting their own wishes onto a situation where it doesn't apply. That's a blanket statement on something he cannot speak to with any real authority. He is stating that anyone who uses this as justification for their belief in a soul, afterlife, or reincarnation is wrong and misguided. Pretty clear, that. Note that Mr. Patalung never once tried to force his religious beliefs onto anything, contrary to your claims. He merely interpreted the situation through the lens of his beliefs. He didn't try to force them onto anyone by saying something like "Those who would latch onto this incident to disprove some higher level of existence are simply projecting their own wishful thinking onto a clear case of reincarnation." If he had, I'd be denouncing him just as much as I am denouncing Copeland for his nearly identical statement. :And by tone-deaf, Mr. Patalung was referring to Copeland's interpretation, not trying to insult Copeland. No, I don't see it as insulting, nor do I see any mention of hell or punishment for believing differently than Patalung does. You are introducing those elements into this, not Patalung. You are only looking at one-half of Patalung's comment, and taking it out of context to do so. When taken as a whole, and in context, it becomes clear that Patalung is saying, "Let's agree to disagree", which would make sense, given that he is a Buddhist, and they tend to not go in for denunciations of others based on their beliefs. After all, what else could "One man's noise is another man's music." possibly mean? How is that an insult? And the issue here isn't more reincarnation, the fact that this civilization got any new life at all can be considered reincarnation, regardless of what happens to them later, after the plug is pulled. It seems pretty pointless to do so, since you've ignored the last two requests, but this one really isn't going anywhere. I've made up my mind, and your arguments and interpretation are doing nothing to sway me, and the same could likely be said of you. For the third time, how 'bout we just let this one go? SpartHawg948 01:52, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :Wow. Thanks for taking this to a new low. I'm still wrong, eh? Didn't know I ever was. I thought this was a matter of interpretation. I have known quite a few Buddhists (at least enough to show them the courtesy of spelling Buddhist right), both from the West and the East, and find them some of the most tolerant people I've had the pleasure of meeting. Even when oppressed by a tyrannical Communist regime, they don't stoop to the level of calling others wrong for their beliefs. I do notice, however, that you have ceased arguing that Copeland was not bring boorish and intolerant with his comments. I've tried several times to end this, as this argument is literally getting us nowhere. You responded with childish retorts such as "And you're still wrong." The lack of maturity is getting to be too much, so I'm going to bow out. Crow about a victory all you want, I prefer to let the passages here speak for themselves. SpartHawg948 02:22, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :Just wanted to point out, in response to your claim that I ceased arguing that Copeland was being boorish and intolerant with his comments, you seem to have overlooked fully one half of my comment immediately preceding your "You're still wrong" post. As for intolerance among Eastern Buddhists, I'll grant there may be some, but on the other hand, try telling a party official from the PRC that you're Buddhist. Or Catholic. Or Protestant. Or Muslim. Or even a member of a non-religious group like the Falun Gong. The official atheism of the PRC can brook no competition. The same can be said for literally every atheist society that has ever sprung up, due in no small part to the fact that state atheism and Communism go hand in hand. No society is prefect, but intolerance is hardly limited to religious people. SpartHawg948 02:36, August 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Just someone who has been watching this unfold, this conversation is going nowhere quickly and these types of conversations, that revolve around religious and political beliefs/views never do. This is quickly turning into a pointless discussion that really dones't belong here to begin with. Lancer1289 02:46, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :::Which is why I've tried to let this one go with an 'agree to disagree' not once, not twice, but three times now. SpartHawg948 02:48, August 23, 2010 (UTC) ::: :::I am not trying to criticize anyone here but I sure hoped that this topic would initiate discussion about the potential impact of this topic on geth and me3 rather than discussion about how well Copeland and Niran responded to each other. Betrayer...In Truth, It was I who was Betrayed... 07:46, August 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::Oh, no, I totally hear you. That's why, when this initially released, I just kept my feelings about the commentary to myself, rather than starting a big argument. Unfortunately, someone else did, and I felt compelled to answer, and it rapidly spun out of control, and sort of crashed and burned. ::::Honestly, I think the geth angle is really interesting. I hadn't considered it till you mentioned it. Way back when the first story in this series appeared, where it just talked about an unmanned AI ship asking all sorts of advanced questions, my first thought was (nerd alert!) "Watch out! This is probably just like the Berserka Probe from Babylon 5! It's gonna kill you!" Boy, was I ever wrong! Well, so far, anyways. I suppose it could still kill them. What I want to know right now is, will they be able to save the civilization onboard, but you are certainly right. If this keeps going, it could have some very interesting implications for Mass Effect 3. SpartHawg948 07:58, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :::: ::::I just got this crazy idea...I was checking a blog by the user Ironreaper on what he would like to see in ME3 and there was some discussion about diversifying enemies and combat locations...If this civilization is saved or at least if their world/ship/tech is saved, there might be a time when Shepard needs to enter this virtual MATRIX, be it still inhabited by its original civilization in its original form or deformed by an AI malfunction, to retrieve certain knowledge/science or rescue/download a certain consciousness (of a major scientist for example) to provide help fight the reapers...This could be the basis for a Matrix/Inception style adventure where the combat grounds, enemies, puzzles to be solved and even game mechanics could be anything since this whole world is virtual...I really hope Bioware is considering this and this news is a means to pave the way.Betrayer...In Truth, It was I who was Betrayed... 08:48, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :::::You just might be on to something there! Maybe this ship and the virtual civilization within it was a means for that people to escape the Reapers. And conceivably, they could have been using this entire time to devise a means of stopping the Reapers. Or at the very least, as you say, they may have something that could be of use in the fight. Very interesting. If you're right, and if BioWare does pick this up for ME3, that could make for some very interesting gameplay. SpartHawg948 08:54, August 23, 2010 (UTC) I doubt the ship will have much, if any, impact on the overall story, and will just be an interesting side quest, sadly. Hi there. I let my friend borrow my laptop the other day. I've just read what he posted, under my name. Sorry about all this. Yeah, this doesn't belong here. While I agree with his overall points, he's not very good at pursuing them, or explaining them well (I'm not good at explaining them either, but that's moot). If you want, I can delete his stuff. Seriously, this is the worst way to do comments I've ever seen. I can edit other people's comments. I mean, that's just dumb. Now, for the topic, Besides the possibility of visiting Garvug (Or wherever the war is being held) I doubt any of this will be more than side quests, if that. Many will likely only be news reports again. NickTyrong 14:42, August 23, 2010 (UTC) Good Grief... Is this arguement even necessary? It's a fictional piece of news in a fictional video game, and we're cooking up an arguement on par with evolutionism vs. creationism (or whatever they're called). It's a simple tidbit designed to give insight into the lore and background of the ME unniverse. As for the stuff about it becoming more in the future, yes, I think it would actually be neat if it was explored further other than some Cerberus daily news. And who says it has to wait till ME3? DLC works just fine. Tanooki1432 15:01, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :No this argument wasn't necessary and it got out of control quickly becasue it focused on political/religious views, and those discussions never go anywhere, or at least my experience. It got hung up on one thing and I really don't see a point to continueing this argument any further. :As to deleting the comments, since they are under your user name, I don't see a problem with deleting them, then I think we can all follow suit. However I have to stress that if you are going to remove comments that are under your user name, and not those mady by others. That is a very bannable offense to remove comments made by other users. Lancer1289 15:21, August 23, 2010 (UTC) Okay, I'll remove them, but uh... I said it's stupid because I can remove them AT ALL. Seriously, worst comment section I've ever seen.NickTyrong 15:59, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :This is a talk page of a wiki article. It's not intended for general comments and conversation like this. Any discussions here are supposed to be about the maintenance and editing of the page, like pointing out a spelling error for someone to correct, suggesting how to make the page look better, or debating whether or not to change/add/remove content. What you want is either the forum or your personal user blog. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:36, August 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Generally that is the idea, but there have been some pages that have evolved into discussions like this. Unfortunately when that happens, these pages rarely go anywhere as it just devolves into an argument where no one wins. Lancer1289 16:48, August 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Oh, will they just hook a generator into the thing, already? I'll bet the hackers told those inside what's up. That would be interesting.NickTyrong 15:25, August 25, 2010 (UTC) And HERE is where whatever quest that occurrs will start. Since they're offering cool tech, I retract my earlier statement. This might be more than just a side quest with no point on the main quest. NickTyrong 15:47, August 27, 2010 (UTC)